Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Weapons

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 4:00:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Heres a very interesting article someone sent my way:
http://mu.ranter.net/theory/weapons.html

--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.

More about : weapons

December 4, 2004 11:23:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

As a fighter I've always chosen lighter armor for the dex bonus that can be
used.



"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:fvidncvMiIKrlC_cRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> Heres a very interesting article someone sent my way:
> http://mu.ranter.net/theory/weapons.html
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 11/30/2004
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:17:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:fvidncvMiIKrlC_cRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> Heres a very interesting article someone sent my way:
> http://mu.ranter.net/theory/weapons.html

Most of the comments appear to be based on hearsay rather than actual
documentation or practical knowledge. As a halberd user in a reenactment
group I can say the views presented of the weapon are very limited. You
actually use a halberd a lot more dynamically than you would think.
The mace arguments are flawed. The mace was designed to crack the armor of
the opponent, like a big tasty lobster. The armor steels of the time were
hard and brittle. This meant that blades couldn't bite into the steel and
split it, but bullets and maces actually broke the armor. This and the
hammer were the tools that knights used on one another.
It seems there is an aim for realism in the articles, but the games are
_heroic fantasy_ .
And finally:
"Plate is very heavy, ... Standing around all day in a suit of plate,
weapons, and other gear will exhaust someone just as certainly as standing
around all day holding a 120 pound stone."
This show that the writer has spent no time near armor, let alone in it. The
120 pound suits were _jousting armor_, designed to keep the wearer alive to
joust another day, just as football players wear padding and armor. The real
battle-ready suits were lighter, and being made to fit the wearer as the
author said, carry their own weight quite well, and what is left is quite
manageable by someone who trains in it all day.
In conclusion, the article was a good solid read, but needed better sourcing
and a more solid basing in the newer research that is out there and readily
available.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:51:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BNitd.7842$Va5.7669@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Ishka Bibble" <x@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:HOctd.201795$HA.110446@attbi_s01...

> Ahem. He cited 65 pounds as the weight of plate armors and pointed
out
> that this was easier to wear over a long time than 30 pound chain due to
> weight distribution.

Yes but he's apparently never heard of using belts to redistribute the
load.

> He is describing someone wearing 65 pounds of armor,
> weapon*s* (at least 10 pounds worth if mace, sword, and dagger are
aboard),
> and more than likely a shield (at least 5 more pounds), and OTHER GEAR
(such
> as an adventurer carries - camping gear, etc.); lumping the lot of this
to
> 120 pounds is not unreasonable.

Wearing armour and carrying weapons and properly stowed gear weighing
120lbs is not the same as carrying a 120lb rock though.

> All I ask is that nitpicks be accurate.
> <sigh>

My criticisms and nit picks after forcing myself past paragraph 2.

1. Arbalestier (sic) would have replaced longbowmen by the 15th century
but for the expense of producing the mechanism.

Crossbows surpassed the range of longbows during the medieval period but
the rate of fire and indistinguishable armour penetration capabilities
would have kept it firmly in the background were it not for the fact that
they are effective in the hands of the skilled and unskilled alike. Musket
mechanisms were no cheaper to produce than crossbow ones and both muskets
and crossbows suffered more in the rain than the longbow.

2. Technological developments were regional due to poor communications.

Utter nonsense. Europeans (after some delay) learned how to make Damascus
steel and improved it within a short time. By the 14th-15th centuries
Soligen blades were as good if not better than anything in the world.
Likewise, Milanese armourers exported their armours throughout Europe.
Trade was the life blood of the medieval world and they knew it.

3. Westerners running round with low grade broadswords

See comment on German swords.

4. Turkish composite bow not developed in the West due to poor
communication.

Mongol and Turkish bows would have been destroyed in short order by the
European climate. They are seriously prone to damp conditions.

5. 80,000 Poles et al destroyed by 20,000 Mongols due to these bows.

.... and European in fighting which is exactly the same thing that halted
any Mongol advance.

6. Suit of plate only wearable by person it is designed for and it took 2
years to make them.

Milanese armourers exported generic pieces designed to be fitted locally
and they didn't take 2 years to do it either.

7. Proper use of swordsmen is as a mobile reserve. Spears rule in
formation.

Rather ignores the pesky Romans who defeated spear formations and used
swords in the front rank. The primary reason for the popularity of spears
in formation was not other infantry. It was to deter *cavalry*.

8. Some nonsense about archers being killed in close combat and volley
fire.

Archers were strong men and though equipped as befitted their low status
and primary role carried melee weapons too. They made use of the
battlefield, stakes driven into the ground and did not only fire in mass
volleys or run away when the enemy was starting to get close.

Then we get into some blatant fan boy poor scholarship...

9. Mongol composite bows 160lb pull and range of 350 yards.

This is simply a crack addled claim. More than double the draw weight of
any reasonable estimate I've seen. There is little evidence that their bow
design significantly differed from other cultures that used composite
materials and a bow of such strength usable from the back of a horse would
be next to impossible to build.

10. English longbow 50-60lb pull and 200 yard range.

Odd then that the Mary Rose bows had draw strengths well beyond that with
the largest staves possessing an estimated 150lb pull. Odd also that even
adolescent archers were required by law to train at distances greater than
200 yards. The advantage of a composite bow was that it was more
mechanically efficient, *not* that you could end up with draw strengths
that surpassed self bows. The idea of a bow used from the back of a horse
having a higher draw strength than a 6ft infantry war bow designed to
penetrate the best armour in the world (at the time) is patently absurd.

11. Compared to a Teutonic knight a Mongol may has well have been armed
with a submachine gun.

Bullshit.

I'm sure I've missed things skimming through but there is a lot of rubbish
in there.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 8:37:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BNitd.7842$Va5.7669@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> All I ask is that nitpicks be accurate.
> <sigh>
>
> -Michael

And all I ask is that definitive "experts" be more accurate. Basically this
guy was talking out his ass.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:05:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Ishka Bibble" <x@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8Tltd.218259$R05.16476@attbi_s53...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > All I ask is that nitpicks be accurate.
> > <sigh>
> >
> > -Michael
>
> And all I ask is that definitive "experts" be more accurate. Basically
this
> guy was talking out his ass.

And yet everything you said about the things he said being wrong was ...
wrong.
You're obviously not equipped to be judging such isses - nor does he
claim to be an expert.
Again, I implore you - make accurate statements.

-Michael
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 11:10:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd, rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:cg7cr01vpg20et6bpnvcla8jpp3ts4cp4i@4ax.com...
> > I particularly like "A suit of chain was in fact typically lighter
> > than a suit of plate (some 30 lbs. compared to around 65 lbs.), but
a
> > chain hauberk has terrible weight distribution. All of the shirt's
> > weight falls on the shoulders of the wearer, and on the wearer's
head
> > in the case of a hauberk with an integrated coif." Putting a coif
on
> > your hauberk means it all hangs off your haed, apparently.
>
> I think you're reading too much into what he said. Not all - just
> shoulders-and-neck (though I'd be hard pressed to figure how much
heavier a
> coif was than a helmet in practice, if at all).

He does specify integrated coif rather than just coif. I suspect he
is assuming that the coif has links attached to the main armor, and
that these were load bearing.

DougL
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:50:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:cg7cr01vpg20et6bpnvcla8jpp3ts4cp4i@4ax.com...
> I particularly like "A suit of chain was in fact typically lighter
> than a suit of plate (some 30 lbs. compared to around 65 lbs.), but a
> chain hauberk has terrible weight distribution. All of the shirt's
> weight falls on the shoulders of the wearer, and on the wearer's head
> in the case of a hauberk with an integrated coif." Putting a coif on
> your hauberk means it all hangs off your haed, apparently.

I think you're reading too much into what he said. Not all - just
shoulders-and-neck (though I'd be hard pressed to figure how much heavier a
coif was than a helmet in practice, if at all).

-Michael
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:35:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:51:08 -0000, "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> Crossbows surpassed the range of longbows during the medieval period but
> the rate of fire and indistinguishable armour penetration capabilities
> would have kept it firmly in the background were it not for the fact that
> they are effective in the hands of the skilled and unskilled alike. Musket
> mechanisms were no cheaper to produce than crossbow ones and both muskets
> and crossbows suffered more in the rain than the longbow.

However matchlock mechanisms are real cheap. Muskets were flintlocks,
and were less affected by rain than previous firearms. They were still
as inaccurate as all hell, however.

> Utter nonsense. Europeans (after some delay) learned how to make Damascus
> steel and improved it within a short time. By the 14th-15th centuries
> Soligen blades were as good if not better than anything in the world.
> Likewise, Milanese armourers exported their armours throughout Europe.

As did those in South Germany. You can see the differences in design
between Milanese and German armours, and the blending of the styles in
the Flemish armours after the lowlands became another armour-exporting
region.

> 3. Westerners running round with low grade broadswords
>
> See comment on German swords.

A load of bollocks since about 900AD at the latest.

> 4. Turkish composite bow not developed in the West due to poor
> communication.
>
> Mongol and Turkish bows would have been destroyed in short order by the
> European climate. They are seriously prone to damp conditions.

Oh yeah.

> 5. 80,000 Poles et al destroyed by 20,000 Mongols due to these bows.
>
> ... and European in fighting which is exactly the same thing that halted
> any Mongol advance.

And note that the mongol advance in the Near East was halted by the
Eyptians under Bebiers (sp?) using perfectly conventional forces and
tactics (and the mongols were allied to the crusaders states IIRC).

> 6. Suit of plate only wearable by person it is designed for and it took 2
> years to make them.
>
> Milanese armourers exported generic pieces designed to be fitted locally
> and they didn't take 2 years to do it either.

Yep. IIRC the buyer would go to the armourer and each piece would be
selected from bins of assorted pieces of varying sizes, and then the
suit would be assembled from the pieces that fitted. Tailor fitted
from pre-fabricated parts. Custom made from an initial fitting was
something that dukes got done, not your averge baron.

> 7. Proper use of swordsmen is as a mobile reserve. Spears rule in
> formation.
>
> Rather ignores the pesky Romans who defeated spear formations and used
> swords in the front rank. The primary reason for the popularity of spears
> in formation was not other infantry. It was to deter *cavalry*.

That and them being real cheap and easy to use in conjunction with a
cheap shield.

> Then we get into some blatant fan boy poor scholarship...
>
> 9. Mongol composite bows 160lb pull and range of 350 yards.
>
> This is simply a crack addled claim. More than double the draw weight of
> any reasonable estimate I've seen. There is little evidence that their bow
> design significantly differed from other cultures that used composite
> materials and a bow of such strength usable from the back of a horse would
> be next to impossible to build.

I doubt those bows were more powerful than Turkish composite bows, and
they weren't powerful enough to penetrate quilting unless fired from
way inside crossbow range (cf the First Crusade).

> 10. English longbow 50-60lb pull and 200 yard range.
>
> Odd then that the Mary Rose bows had draw strengths well beyond that with
> the largest staves possessing an estimated 150lb pull. Odd also that even
> adolescent archers were required by law to train at distances greater than
> 200 yards. The advantage of a composite bow was that it was more
> mechanically efficient, *not* that you could end up with draw strengths
> that surpassed self bows. The idea of a bow used from the back of a horse
> having a higher draw strength than a 6ft infantry war bow designed to
> penetrate the best armour in the world (at the time) is patently absurd.

The longbow is in someways a 'natural' composite bow, with the heart
wood replacing the horn, and the sapwood replacing the sinew.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:51:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39ntd.8032$Va5.7008@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> wrote in message
> news:41b5d1cf$0$14577$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > Ahem. He cited 65 pounds as the weight of plate armors and
pointed
> out
> > > that this was easier to wear over a long time than 30 pound chain
due to
> > > weight distribution.
> >
> > Yes but he's apparently never heard of using belts to redistribute the
> load.
>
> Irrelevant - plate is easier to wear than chain. He *argued* that
plate
> is easier to wear than chain.

He said more than that though. It doesn't matter if your answer is correct
when your working is wrong. Mail, properly worn, is nothing like a jacket
with strings of lead weight hanging off it as he suggests.

> > Wearing armour and carrying weapons and properly stowed gear weighing
> > 120lbs is not the same as carrying a 120lb rock though.
>
> Depends on how you're carrying the rock, doesn't it? Your legs might
> tell a different story than your shoulders, but his analogy is not
> inappropriate.

Having fancy straps and counter weights to even the load flies against the
point of his comparison though.

> > 1. Arbalestier (sic) would have replaced longbowmen by the 15th
century
> > but for the expense of producing the mechanism.
> >
> > Crossbows surpassed the range of longbows during the medieval period
but
> > the rate of fire and indistinguishable armour penetration capabilities
> > would have kept it firmly in the background were it not for the fact
that
> > they are effective in the hands of the skilled and unskilled alike.
Musket
> > mechanisms were no cheaper to produce than crossbow ones and both
muskets
> > and crossbows suffered more in the rain than the longbow.
>
> What does this have to do with his observation that archers in close
> combat and adventuring are somewhat silly?

Nothing. This has to do with his specific claim wrt to crossbowmen.

At low levels though D&D is pretty good at matching archery speed given
that a skilled archer was supposed to be able to manage a shot every five
seconds or so. Archers didn't only fire in arcing volleys either. At
closer range they'd have a very good chance of killing an approaching
dagger wielder.

> > 2. Technological developments were regional due to poor
communications.
> >
> > Utter nonsense. Europeans (after some delay) learned how to make
Damascus
> > steel and improved it within a short time. By the 14th-15th centuries
> > Soligen blades were as good if not better than anything in the world.
> > Likewise, Milanese armourers exported their armours throughout Europe.
> > Trade was the life blood of the medieval world and they knew it.
>
> The writer doesn't know very much about european sword designs,
having
> bought the myth of damascus and japan being the only places of good
> swordsmithing, but that's a different issue. His error is in assuming
the
> source of the problem is "poor communication", whereas the issue is one
of
> intellectual property, as it were. The art of the smith is a *secret*!

He also applied the same argument to composite bows. It reveals a
staggering inability to appreciate that medieval Europeans used what
suited them best and that renders his perception of the *entire* subject
spotty at best.

> > 6. Suit of plate only wearable by person it is designed for and it
took 2
> > years to make them.
> >
> > Milanese armourers exported generic pieces designed to be fitted
locally
> > and they didn't take 2 years to do it either.
>
> Another gap in his knowledge. However, I believe this part of the
> document was a suggestion to treat every such armor as an incarnation of
the
> best custom work.

It reads to me as more like a list of reasons why plate armour wouldn't
become utterly and universally dominant in a party of adventurers.

> > 7. Proper use of swordsmen is as a mobile reserve. Spears rule in
> > formation.
> >
> > Rather ignores the pesky Romans who defeated spear formations and used
> > swords in the front rank. The primary reason for the popularity of
spears
> > in formation was not other infantry. It was to deter *cavalry*.
>
> He wasn't talking about the Roman era, and you know full well that
> shieldwall-and-shortsword is a very special case that has little bearing
on
> the use of the sword in European warfare in the middle ages.

But there is a *reason* for that which has nothing to do with swords. They
weren't more common because of the economic and social realities of the
time. The difference with the Romans was the fact that they would provide
the expensive sword, armour and shield and spend the best part of a
campaigning season teaching the soldier how to use it. A levy in the
medieval world is a bunch of people bringing their own cheap stuff and
going straight into service. Only a core of sword wielding nobles and
trained men at arms were anything like professional soldiers.

Besides you can't argue with bringing the Romans up given that his history
of the general use of the spear in battle falls into that timeline. He
mentioned the Greeks after all.

> The reasons to
> use any given weapon vary from situation to situation - but he's right
> enough that spears were primary weapons of war for a long time,

But he's quite wrong about *why*. D&D in its current incarnation gets the
stats about right IMO.

> > 8. Some nonsense about archers being killed in close combat and volley
> fire.
> >
> > Archers were strong men and though equipped as befitted their low
status
> > and primary role carried melee weapons too. They made use of the
> > battlefield, stakes driven into the ground and did not only fire in
mass
> > volleys or run away when the enemy was starting to get close.
>
> I would be very surprised if every archer was as effective in melee
as
> Agincourt.

Undoubtably but that doesn't mean they were routinuely swept away in
charges either. Sure, they'd retreat in the face of imminent attack to
redeploy on the flanks but they didn't fire distant volleys and then fade
into obscurity. Plenty of charges were broken up by lethally short range
shooting. A cavalry swiftly loses its integrity when it has to clamber
over the bodies of the dead.

> > 9. Mongol composite bows 160lb pull and range of 350 yards.
> >
> > This is simply a crack addled claim. More than double the draw weight
of
> > any reasonable estimate I've seen. There is little evidence that their
bow
> > design significantly differed from other cultures that used composite
> > materials and a bow of such strength usable from the back of a horse
would
> > be next to impossible to build.
>
> Aye, those were funny numbers. Mongol bows were significant because
of
> the power they packed *for their size*, not for the power they packed,
as it
> were.

Exactly.

> > 10. English longbow 50-60lb pull and 200 yard range.
> >
> > Odd then that the Mary Rose bows had draw strengths well beyond that
with
> > the largest staves possessing an estimated 150lb pull. Odd also that
even
> > adolescent archers were required by law to train at distances greater
than
> > 200 yards. The advantage of a composite bow was that it was more
> > mechanically efficient, *not* that you could end up with draw
strengths
> > that surpassed self bows. The idea of a bow used from the back of a
horse
> > having a higher draw strength than a 6ft infantry war bow designed to
> > penetrate the best armour in the world (at the time) is patently
absurd.
>
> Bow draw weights are among the most boggled facts on the net.

They certainly are in most Usenet discussions I recall. Largely because of
old fasioned assumptions made without archealogical evidence popularized
by influencial authors like Oman IIRC.

> > 11. Compared to a Teutonic knight a Mongol may has well have been
armed
> > with a submachine gun.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> Rather depends on the range of the fight. A mounted knight passing
> through less-well-equipped infantry is going to be a "submachine gun",
too.

The Mongols were basically a well disciplined and well trained light
cavalry army (who absorbed the technical expertise of other cultures,
particularily siege techniques). Had they been immersed in a deeper
European conflict they'd have found the terrain unsuited to their tactics.

> > I'm sure I've missed things skimming through but there is a lot of
rubbish
> > in there.
>
> The spirit of the discussion was fair enough.

Spirit schmirit! ;) 
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 2:08:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:jr7cr0lcum1c8b9fnhsdup62a7l8hmk163@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 15:51:08 -0000, "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> carved
> upon a tablet of ether:

> > 10. English longbow 50-60lb pull and 200 yard range.
> >
> > Odd then that the Mary Rose bows had draw strengths well beyond that
with
> > the largest staves possessing an estimated 150lb pull. Odd also that
even
> > adolescent archers were required by law to train at distances greater
than
> > 200 yards. The advantage of a composite bow was that it was more
> > mechanically efficient, *not* that you could end up with draw
strengths
> > that surpassed self bows. The idea of a bow used from the back of a
horse
> > having a higher draw strength than a 6ft infantry war bow designed to
> > penetrate the best armour in the world (at the time) is patently
absurd.
>
> The longbow is in someways a 'natural' composite bow, with the heart
> wood replacing the horn, and the sapwood replacing the sinew.

Right. "Self bow" meaning self composite. They weren't as efficient as
Eastern designs though, you wasted more force with the longbow but you
also have a lot more to waste.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 2:47:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd, rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"J.O. Aho" <u...@example.net> wrote in message
news:31o75gF3chkscU1@individual.net...

>> Rounding a piece of armour will usually increase the deviation of
the impact angle from
>> the normal and that is a direct factor in penetrative ability.

This is still done on tanks; not so much on personal ballistic armor.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a deformed joint is no
longer flexible, so a man could be effectively taken out of action by
whacking one the joints of his armor. To combat this, critical joints
on plate armor typically have additional armor over them, perhaps a
seemingly non-functional circlet.

Layering armor in separate sheets increases the effectiveness of
ballistic armor for a given net thickness of armor - it has better
kinetic energy dissipation. This is used in tanks and in micrometeorite
shielding. Is this still true at the speeds of medieval weapontry? What
about massive weapons like a hammer or axe, wouldn't an integral armor
provide better protection than layered because it would have a higher
threshold of initial damage and the aim would be to keep the armor
intact. Are there any uses of layered armor in medieval armor?
MadKaugh
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:34:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ishka Bibble wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>does not inflict traumatic crushing impacts and all the destruction that
>>comes with them and "just" cracks armor is a little silly - and armor that
>>is made tough enough to function properly will deform, not crack.
>
> Armor made properly will be hard enough that arrows will skate off the
> surface, but the same hardness comes at the cost of a little brittleness.

To make an armour to withstand hits from arrows has a lot to do with the shape
of the armour pieces. Even if a "english" longbow would penetrate a metal
plate with ease, it will not do the same when it's bend to it's rounder form,
which it will have when it's an armour piece.
Quite few of the knights that died at Achincourt died of arrows, most of the
drowned in the mud (mud and metal armour is a quite bad combination) or was
killed in close combat by the almost unarmoured english soldiers.

If you want to do some own testing, get yourself a bow, two pieces of 3mm
steel, make one of them roundish with a bend in the middle. Take a shot on
both steel pieces and you notice that the bigger plain piece you have the
easier the arrow will get to puncture it, the smaller and shaped the piece is,
the more difficult it will be.


//Aho
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:34:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:31o75gF3chkscU1@individual.net...
> Ishka Bibble wrote:
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >>does not inflict traumatic crushing impacts and all the destruction
that
> >>comes with them and "just" cracks armor is a little silly - and armor
that
> >>is made tough enough to function properly will deform, not crack.
> >
> > Armor made properly will be hard enough that arrows will skate off the
> > surface, but the same hardness comes at the cost of a little
brittleness.
>
> To make an armour to withstand hits from arrows has a lot to do with the
shape
> of the armour pieces. Even if a "english" longbow would penetrate a
metal
> plate with ease, it will not do the same when it's bend to it's rounder
form,
> which it will have when it's an armour piece.

Sometimes. Rounding a piece of armour will usually increase the deviation
of the impact angle from the normal and that is a direct factor in
penetrative ability. There is a reprinted article in the back of Hardy's
"Longbow: A social and military history" that contains technical info on
the thickness of various armour parts and the results of an armour
presentation experiment (plus an equation for the more technically minded)
for anyone who is interested.
December 8, 2004 3:53:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol, lle n'vanima ar' lle atara lanneina!

> 7. Proper use of swordsmen is as a mobile reserve. Spears rule in
> formation.
>
> Rather ignores the pesky Romans who defeated spear formations and used
> swords in the front rank. The primary reason for the popularity of spears
> in formation was not other infantry. It was to deter *cavalry*.

exactly..
spears are great weapon for FORMATION.. but there are just few battles
where line of formation had hold till the end of the battle (hoplites and
phalanx not included). After chargin directly in the infantry unit and
comes to HtH combat, sword (gaelic or roman version) is far more usable
weapon than clumsy spear (disclaimer : short zulu spear also not
included)

--
nista od potpisa danas..
apatiner@yahoo.nJet
http://force.on.neobee.net
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:53:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd, rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<me>

>> >> Layering armor in separate sheets increases the effectiveness of
>> >> ballistic armor for a given net thickness of armor - it has
better
>> >> kinetic energy dissipation.

<Rupert Boleyn>

>> Actually, that's not why it's done.

>> For space vehicles it's so that the first layer vapouries the
>> micrometeor, and the second can then catch the dispersed
>> particles.

A bit of tomato, tomato here. Providing no medium for the shock wave
that would rip a cone out of a thick single layer is part of it, too.

>> In tanks it's either to put old-style HEAT rounds far enough
>> away from their optimal stand-off range that their jet
>> has lost its focus, or because the armour is of a modern
>> composite design that has many seperate components in
>> the box (and AFAIK most don't use air spaces).

I believe you are right, but if I understand how it works, alternate
layers
are crushable material, and will both absorb kinetic energy in the
crushing and transmit the shockwave from the warhead poorly.


>> Against solid penetrators two seperate layers of armour are actually
>> less effective than one single layer - resistance to penetration
(and
>> strength) is roughly proportional to the square of thickness (in a
>> homogenous layer).

OK, that makes sense.


>> Anyway, for personal armour the bulk of multiple spaced layers is
>> likely to be excessive, and for metal armour it's likely to make
each
>> individual layer too weak to resist either deformation on impact, or
>> cutting by swords and axes.

>> Armour was often layered, but it was usually of different types.
>> A 'coat of plates' (strips of plate rivetted to a heavy cloth
fronting)
>> over mail over padding was normal in the hundred years war for
>> torso protection. A full helmet over padding (possibly with a mail
>> coif between) was the standard head protection, and plate over
>> cloth was the norm for the limbs - all assuming you could afford
>> it, of course.

>> Just about any metallic armour would have a quilted coat (byrnie,
>> and gambeson were some of the names for this garment) or arming
>> doublet under it.

In a sense what you are saying is "It wasn't effective, but they did it
anyway." But the inner armor was padding, not hard, deflective armor.
This makes sense, because the padding would protect the wearer from
force transmitted through the hard armor.
Hmm, want a suit of Gnomish Reactive Plate Armor?


MadKaugh
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 1:05:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 7 Dec 2004 20:10:02 -0800, "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:cg7cr01vpg20et6bpnvcla8jpp3ts4cp4i@4ax.com...
> > > I particularly like "A suit of chain was in fact typically lighter
> > > than a suit of plate (some 30 lbs. compared to around 65 lbs.), but
> a
> > > chain hauberk has terrible weight distribution. All of the shirt's
> > > weight falls on the shoulders of the wearer, and on the wearer's
> head
> > > in the case of a hauberk with an integrated coif." Putting a coif
> on
> > > your hauberk means it all hangs off your haed, apparently.
> >
> > I think you're reading too much into what he said. Not all - just
> > shoulders-and-neck (though I'd be hard pressed to figure how much
> heavier a
> > coif was than a helmet in practice, if at all).
>
> He does specify integrated coif rather than just coif. I suspect he
> is assuming that the coif has links attached to the main armor, and
> that these were load bearing.

I assumed that because it's non-sensical if he meant to other. Mind
you, it's stupid this way, so there you go - dumb or dumber, you pays
your money and you takes your choice.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 1:11:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 03:57:33 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> > Why? The reason they were common wasn't their awesomeness, but their
> > low price and ease of use in formation.
>
> We see warriors going for reach weapons in any era - spears, halbards,
> lances, pikes, naginatas ... these are good, killing weapons, and their
> reach provides defensive benefits that are only magnified when in formation.
> D&D doesn't capture that very well. I think a spear used two-handed should
> at least rival our trusty longsword, and could impose a situational
> advantage to AC in the hands of a martially-trained user.

Well, in D&D that's where that whole reach/AoO for closing thing comes
in. It's just that this doesn't really cut it at high levels. However,
in a game like D&D it probably shouldn't - it's not what it's about.
Also, spears were generally used in formation, or for hunting animals.
In both cases your flanks were reasonably secure. Against an
intelligent opponent, one on one, they've never been very popular, and
that's closer to the way most combat in D&D (and most other fantasy
rpgs) looks than formation fighting. The vikings were quite into
spears, but they didn't use them for dueling much - axes and swords
were preferred.

BTW, I really liked the way that page went on about how practically no
rpgs had decent rules for reach. C&S had rules, as did Runequest, back
in the 70s. They weren't prefect, but they weren't bad. Aftermath had
comprehensive rules in the early 80s. GURPS had and has extremely
comprehensive rules, and reach weapons are known killers in that game
- until the wielder runs out of room to retreat to.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 4:05:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:51:45 -0000, "Symbol" <jb70@talk21.com> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> Undoubtably but that doesn't mean they were routinuely swept away in
> charges either. Sure, they'd retreat in the face of imminent attack to
> redeploy on the flanks but they didn't fire distant volleys and then fade
> into obscurity. Plenty of charges were broken up by lethally short range
> shooting. A cavalry swiftly loses its integrity when it has to clamber
> over the bodies of the dead.

ISTR that the 'original' Welsh Longbow was used as a devastating short
range weapon, usually from ambush. That suggests almost the opposite
attitude towards getting close and personal from that the article
writer ascribes to bowmen.

> They certainly are in most Usenet discussions I recall. Largely because of
> old fasioned assumptions made without archealogical evidence popularized
> by influencial authors like Oman IIRC.

Oamn also claimed that medieval armies didn't fight many field battles
because they couldn't find each other, so I tend to take claims made
on his authority with quite a bit of salt. Besides, he's way
out-dated.

> The Mongols were basically a well disciplined and well trained light
> cavalry army (who absorbed the technical expertise of other cultures,
> particularily siege techniques). Had they been immersed in a deeper
> European conflict they'd have found the terrain unsuited to their tactics.

I don't think the sheer number of fortifications would've suited them
either. It's one thing to have a decent seige train, but quite another
to end up wedded to the darned thing. Then there's the rain and the
damp and the lush grass that's bad for their ponies, and all those
bloddy rivers, the hostile natives, the forests, and all those
mountains.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 1:26:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:18:30 GMT, "Ishka Bibble" <x@comcast.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Thirdly, go to ANY site about forging and blacksmithing and you will learn
> (assuming you can swallow your pride long enough to concede that someone
> else might know a thing or two more than you about the subject matter
> involved, O ye master of small mindedness) that there is DEFINITELY a
> tradeoff between HARDNESS/BRITTLE versus SOFTNESS/FLEXIBLE. THIS is what the
> damascus and folded steel blades of Japan were trying to beat.

It wasn't the folding that was how the Japanese set out to defeat the
problem, but the use of different steels for the blade edge and the
back/core. This is similar to the use of soft iron bundles in the
centre with a hard edge welded around it in a saxon, norse, or
frankish broadsword.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 1:43:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 8 Dec 2004 11:47:13 -0800, kerchmar.randy@epa.gov carved upon a
tablet of ether:

> This is still done on tanks; not so much on personal ballistic armor.

Not much on modern western tanks - the composite armour block used
don't take to compuned curves well. They are sloped, often radically,
though. Soviet/Russian tanks use a different composite that can be
moulded and set in compound curves, so they still have domed turrets.

> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that a deformed joint is no
> longer flexible, so a man could be effectively taken out of action by
> whacking one the joints of his armor. To combat this, critical joints
> on plate armor typically have additional armor over them, perhaps a
> seemingly non-functional circlet.

And cunningly designed joint protection that minimses the risk, or
just mail on the inside.

> Layering armor in separate sheets increases the effectiveness of
> ballistic armor for a given net thickness of armor - it has better
> kinetic energy dissipation. This is used in tanks and in micrometeorite
> shielding.

Actually, that's not why it's done.

For space vehicles it's so that the first layer vapouries the
micrometeor, and the second can then catch the dispersed particles. In
tanks it's either to put old-style HEAT rounds far enough away from
their optimal stand-off range that their jet has lost its focus, or
because the armour is of a modern composite design that has many
seperate components in the box (and AFAIK most don't use air spaces).

Against solid penetrators two seperate layers of armour are actually
less effective than one single layer - resistance to penetration (and
strength) is roughly proportional to the square of thickness (in a
homogenous layer). This was a major consideration in early-mid 20th
century battleship design - they wanted the maximum resistance to
penetration, but there was also a need for a second layer to protect
against fragments from those shells that did penetrate. The thicker
the second layer the closer you could have it to the first, and thus
the more interior volume you protected, but the thinner the first
layer would have to be - and if it's too thin the shell will sail on
through both layers.

Anyway, for personal armour the bulk of multiple spaced layers is
likely to be excessive, and for metal armour it's likely to make each
individual layer too weak to resist either deformation on impact, or
cutting by swords and axes.

> Is this still true at the speeds of medieval weapontry? What
> about massive weapons like a hammer or axe, wouldn't an integral armor
> provide better protection than layered because it would have a higher
> threshold of initial damage and the aim would be to keep the armor
> intact. Are there any uses of layered armor in medieval armor?

Armour was often layered, but it was usually of different types. A
'coat of plates' (strips of plate rivetted to a heavy cloth fronting)
over mail over padding was normal in the hundred years war for torso
protection. A full helmet over padding (possibly with a mail coif
between) was the standard head protection, and plate over cloth was
the norm for the limbs - all assuming you could afford it, of course.

Just about any metallic armour would have a quilted coat (byrnie, and
gambeson were some of the names for this garment) or arming doublet
under it.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 2:03:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:22:36 +0100, Mart van de Wege
<mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Look, I'll be the first to admit that MSB's manners may leave
> something to be desired. It'll take 2 days of lurking at most to see
> how short his fuse is (answer: *very* short).

I didn't think he had one - he's like a full powder barrel with the
top left off.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 5:17:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 8 Dec 2004 14:53:24 -0800, kerchmar.randy@epa.gov carved upon a
tablet of ether:

> >> Armour was often layered, but it was usually of different types.
> >> A 'coat of plates' (strips of plate rivetted to a heavy cloth
> fronting)
> >> over mail over padding was normal in the hundred years war for
> >> torso protection. A full helmet over padding (possibly with a mail
> >> coif between) was the standard head protection, and plate over
> >> cloth was the norm for the limbs - all assuming you could afford
> >> it, of course.
>
> >> Just about any metallic armour would have a quilted coat (byrnie,
> >> and gambeson were some of the names for this garment) or arming
> >> doublet under it.
>
> In a sense what you are saying is "It wasn't effective, but they did it
> anyway."

No, because it wasn't homogeneous. I was saying multiple layers of one
type of armour would be pointless.

> But the inner armor was padding, not hard, deflective armor.
> This makes sense, because the padding would protect the wearer from
> force transmitted through the hard armor.

But just to confuse matters, it wasn't unknown for mail leggings to be
worn _over_ plate shin guards. My guess is that this was an attempt to
stop the mail flexing under impact, and it was easier to get sitting
right than a plate over the top (which later became normal as complete
plate leggings evolved).


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 7:48:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> We see warriors going for reach weapons in any era - spears, halbards,
> lances, pikes, naginatas ... these are good, killing weapons, and their
> reach provides defensive benefits that are only magnified when in formation.
> D&D doesn't capture that very well. I think a spear used two-handed should
> at least rival our trusty longsword, and could impose a situational
> advantage to AC in the hands of a martially-trained user.

In Complete Warrior, I think (the books as home) there were additional special
feat paths that had to do with using pole-arms or in phalanx formation.
--
"... to satisfy the honours and place, I had to leave her in silence ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 7:57:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.adnd,rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 15:18:30 GMT, "Ishka Bibble" <x@comcast.net>
>>Thirdly, go to ANY site about forging and blacksmithing and you will learn
>>(assuming you can swallow your pride long enough to concede that someone
>>else might know a thing or two more than you about the subject matter
>>involved, O ye master of small mindedness) that there is DEFINITELY a
>>tradeoff between HARDNESS/BRITTLE versus SOFTNESS/FLEXIBLE. THIS is what the
>>damascus and folded steel blades of Japan were trying to beat.
> It wasn't the folding that was how the Japanese set out to defeat the
> problem, but the use of different steels for the blade edge and the
> back/core. This is similar to the use of soft iron bundles in the
> centre with a hard edge welded around it in a saxon, norse, or
> frankish broadsword.

Or corking a baseball bat.
--
"... to satisfy the honours and place, I had to leave her in silence ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
!